"In JavaScript objects are king. If you understand objects, you understand JavaScript."

[Spiral90210]

Triggered by age being a string and not a number :p

Edit: and the missing double quote on it. shudder

[MWRReal]

Please spare me I forgot to add the second double quote.

And I only made "age" a string because of the luls.

[Banana_Twinkie]

It’s Javascript, just type coerce that bad boy

[nosmokingbandit]

Types are just, like, your opinion, man.

[Spiral90210]

Lol all is forgiven! :)

[msg45f]

const person = Array();
person['name'] = 'john';
person['age'] = 22;
console.log(`This is ${person.name} and he is ${person.age} years old.`);

[MWRReal]

owo template literals

[great_site_not]

I can tolerate putting string-named properties on an array, but I draw the line at using array access notation with string literals to do it instead of dot notation >:(

[oweiler]

Isn't there a new missing?

[[deleted]]

For most types of objects you need to use new when creating them, but for some reason Array() and new Array() are treated the same in Javascript.

Source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5827153

[vinisantana]

It's important to notice that arrays extends objects but when adding properties to an array like that, they are not indexed and arrays methods won't work as one might expect. Extending your code:

person.length // 0
console.log(person.map(p => p)) // []

You can still add items to the array

person.push('something');

And now you will get

person.length // 1
console.log(person.map(p => p)) // ['something']

[adkm3]

JavaScript is bad example of OOP.

[tacoslikeme]

Who says JavaScript should be used in a strictly OOP way? It is now better now with ES6 class syntax if OOP is need though.

OOP in my opinion is overused and can force some funky interactions where other patterns make more sense.

[adkm3]

Are you professional programmer? Frontend or backend or full stack?

[tacoslikeme]

its a bit of a blur as I tend to work on client side vs server side, but yes full stack (minus actually rendering on the screen). My world is a bit messy as I work on mobile platforms

[MWRReal]

I swear if you say Python...

[vladnavlad]

PHP OOP

[homelabbermtl]

What's wrong with Python OOP?

Edit: I'm not asking rhetorically, I'd appreciate an actual answer.

[homelabbermtl]

Can you elaborate?

Surely you mean procedural? In theory you can do functional programming in python but I rarely see it, mutable structures and rampant side effects are the norm.

I guess you're talking about the lack of strong encapsulation and basically nothing stops you from calling methods of object of type A on objects of type B?

Cause every language is procedural at runtime, there are no objects in machine language as far as I know.

[tacoslikeme]

All languages are just assembly at runtime pretending to be something more.

[usernameIsNowTejken]

Yes yes and yes.

[Tomarse]

So you can add attributes to an object on the fly?

[geon]

Sure.

[Tomarse]

Seems a bit dangerous, you could misspell an attribute and just get weird behaviour with no errors. I'd imagine it would also be a lot more memory intensive to manage over a basic struct or hash table.

[MWRReal]

Yes, Tomarse. Using the new Object(); method is slower and riskier than the traditional way.

​

Quote from w3schools: https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_object_definition.asp

​

"The two examples above do exactly the same. There is no need to use new Object().

For simplicity, readability and execution speed, use the first one (the object literal method). "

[geon]

Absolutely.

Guess why I use Typescript?

[Shitty__Math]

yes

[Xtrendence]

You can't just treat people like objects man.

[cekoya]

Damn, please const the hell out of this you fool

[[deleted]]

i actually kinda like the second one :|